Did the Church Fathers write in Classical Latin?
jm
later to classical?
John Sullivan
<john_20...@yahoo.com> writes
>or "church" latin?
Many of the concepts that the Church Fathers wrote about cannot be
expressed in classical Latin as there are no words for them. So it is
fair to assume that they wrote in Church Latin.
> Would it hurt to learn "church" latin and move
>later to classical?
Probably not. You alone can decide what you want to learn. Church Latin
is "easier" than classical, so I'm told, so it's probably better to
learn Latin "properly", i.e. classical, first, and move on to Church
Latin later.
--
John Sullivan
Please note that any disclaimer on email to me does not
apply, because I have not agreed with it. If your lawyers
disagree, please ask them to study the law of contract.
bob
> From: john_20...@yahoo.com (jm)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
> Date: 23 Oct 2003 20:39:00 -0700
> Subject: Did the Church Fathers write in Classical Latin?
>
> or "church" latin? Would it hurt to learn "church" latin and move
> later to classical?
The Latin of the Latin Fathers varies considerably in both "purity" and
quality. Tertullian, who is fond of coining new words, is quite baroque, but
nonetheless good. Cassian is competent, but betrays his eastern background.
Augustine is very good, especially in the clarity of the Confessions.
Cyprian is an administrator and those concerns are reflected in his Latin.
The Acts of the Martyrs are quite varied in quality, plainly stated, and
often very touching. I am quite fond of the Martyrdom of Cyprian (which, as
a narrative full of gravitas and dignity in articulo mortis, is quite
moving) and that of Julius the Veteran, who goes to his death with
resignation, plain speech, and no fanfare, as would befit a man whose
business has been death. Jerome, however, is the giant. He can stand with
any of the pagans. His letters, I think. stand with those of Cicero and
Pliny.
I would say that you would get the most bang for your time and dollar by
immersing yourself in a good grammar of classical Latin. Then read some of
the great authors. After that, when the grammar and syntax seem more
natural, you can specialize in whatever might please you.
Bob
bob
> From: John Sullivan <spam...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:01:48 +0100
> Subject: Re: Did the Church Fathers write in Classical Latin?
>
> Church Latin
> is "easier" than classical
The discussion on time in Confessiones X will give a reader a vigorous
workout.
Tertullian can also be a bowflex of antiquity.
Bob
Amanda Wieland
jm
So they, no offense other posters, Augustine and these other Fathers
wrote in Classical Latin?
If I were to pick up what they wrote, how can one tell if it Classical
or Church Latin? Since I know NOTHING about Latin except the two are
supposed to sound different, how would I find out; is there some
"trick" to looking for it?
John Briggs
What do you mean by "sound different"? To answer your original question,
essentially Latin is Latin. Until you have acquired a fair degree of
proficiency, you won't be able to tell the difference.
--
John Briggs
J. W. Love
>So they, no offense other posters, Augustine and these
>other Fathers wrote in Classical Latin?
Naturally, it depends on how you define the terms! If you're asking if a
revived Caesar, Sallust, Cicero, Horace, Vergil, or Ovid would have been able
to read Augustine's prose with ease, the answer is probably yes. Faced with a
much later example, a medieval production like the Vision of Boso [sic], they
might have furrowed their brows at its crudities, but they'd still have gotten
the gist of it.
Try it with English in historical reverse: you'd understand a sentence like
"Thou hast holpen me withal" to mean something like "You've helped me anyway,"
right? Well, those sentences may show more variance than a similar pair of
matched sentences in Classical and modern Latin would.
>If I were to pick up what they wrote, how can one tell if it
>Classical or Church Latin? Since I know NOTHING
>about Latin except the two are supposed to sound
>different, how would I find out; is there some "trick" to
>looking for it?
It's the same language, albeit with changes in vocabulary, grammar, and idiom.
These changes happened little by little. Nobody got up one morning and decided
to declare Classical Latin dead and medieval Latin alive. If by "sound
different" you're concerned with pronunciation, don't worry, because most of
the words will look the same on the page. The Latin in Mel Gibson's forthcoming
movie about Jesus is supposedly pronounced the Italian church-Latin way;
revived Romans of the Golden Age would probably understand most of it but think
Gibson had hired barbarians for voice coaches.
What do you mean by "church Latin"? Does it include Latin by Protestants like
Milton, scientists like Linnaeus & Newton, and corporations like Radio Finland
& Radio Bremen? Or do you mean to restrict it to productions of the Roman
Catholic Church?
If you're wondering where to start, there may be nothing easier than the Latin
Bible---not least because, if you're in the Christian tradition, your prior
knowledge of the English version of many passages will supply you with much of
the appropriate vocabulary, and you won't have to spend so much time looking
words up in a dictionary. Consider a word-for-word translation (John 14:6):
Ego sum via, et veritas, et vita.
I am way, and truth, and life.
Nemo venit ad Patrem, nisi per me.
Nobody comes to Father, unless through me.
You may recognize several of these Latin words. If you think about _paternal,
paternity, patricide, patrilineal, patrimony, patristic,_ you'll have a clue
about _Patrem._ Likewise _verity_ & _veritas_ and _vital_ & _vita._ If you
understand the common phrase _per se_ ('through itself'), you'll have no
trouble with _per me._ You get the idea.
Bear in mind: Classical Latin word-order is usually less like English
word-order than this (and biblical word-order often is), Classical Latin
sentences are often longer & more complex than this, and it's generally a
self-defeating strategy to translate word for word like this.
Simon Crouch
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:XTvmb.944$Zr6...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> jm wrote:
> > If I were to pick up what they wrote, how can one tell if it Classical
> > or Church Latin? Since I know NOTHING about Latin except the two are
> > supposed to sound different, how would I find out; is there some
> > "trick" to looking for it?
>
> What do you mean by "sound different"?
He may be referring to the fact that there is a considerable difference
between the pronounciation of classical latin and modern ecclesiastical
latin.
all the best,
Simon.
Robert Stonehouse
See if you can get L.R. Palmer, The Latin Language (London, Faber 1954
and reprints) and read chapter 7, Special Languages - Christian Latin.
Summarising, there were two things that differentiated Christian
Latin. First, the Christians were of low social class ad spoke vulgar
Latin, not the artificial literary language that is almost all we have
left. Secondly,they needed a language to translate the scriptures, and
so many strange usages grew up, including a lot of Greek words and
constructions (and not a few gross mistranslations).
Christian writers like Augustine (he was an advocate before he became
a Christian) varied a great deal in their style depending on whom they
were addressing. So there was a broad spectrum of Chrisian Latin, some
closer to classical (though still modified to express Christian
concepts) and some closer to he vulgar language.
jm
I actually just wanted to be able to read Augustine. The problem is I
have to teach my kids too. Neither of us knows Latin now, but both of
us will have to learn it in the future. And since most of the
colleges that I know of around here teach Classical Latin I didn't
want to start either of usdown the wrong path. I didn't want us to
have to un-learn what we already had learned. Now, to the problem. I
have a homeschool book Latin Christiana that uses "church" Latin
pronunciation. Due mainly I suppose because of the Author's being
Catholic; this last part is not my point. It is just that the
pronunciation is different and it is call "Church, Italian,
Ecclesiastical, or Christian Latin" (p. iv).
I all I am really trying to do is make sure that when the switch is
made to Classical, there won't be a problem. I also would like to use
it to read Augustine and other Church Fathers. I am sure I would look
at a Latin Bible to help me, but I am more interested in Koine Greek
for that.
Any comments are appreciated. Thanks again to all for the information
- most helpful.
Robert Stonehouse
>lov...@aol.comix (J. W. Love) wrote in message news:<20031025114456...@mb-m19.aol.com>...
>> John wrote:
>I actually just wanted to be able to read Augustine. The problem is I
>have to teach my kids too. Neither of us knows Latin now, but both of
>us will have to learn it in the future. And since most of the
>colleges that I know of around here teach Classical Latin I didn't
>want to start either of usdown the wrong path. I didn't want us to
>have to un-learn what we already had learned. Now, to the problem. I
>have a homeschool book Latin Christiana that uses "church" Latin
>pronunciation. Due mainly I suppose because of the Author's being
>Catholic; this last part is not my point. It is just that the
>pronunciation is different and it is call "Church, Italian,
>Ecclesiastical, or Christian Latin" (p. iv).
>
>I all I am really trying to do is make sure that when the switch is
>made to Classical, there won't be a problem. I also would like to use
>it to read Augustine and other Church Fathers. I am sure I would look
>at a Latin Bible to help me, but I am more interested in Koine Greek
>for that.
Start from classical, then, as Augustine himself did. It will not be
hard to add the Christian features later.
Roger Pearse
> quality. Tertullian, who is fond of coining new words, is quite baroque, but
> nonetheless good.
Tertullian's work "De pallio" has been called the hardest thing in the
Latin language. He can be very concise; and since his text has only
just survived in some cases, damage can be a serious matter.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
bob
> From: john_20...@yahoo.com (jm)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
> Date: 25 Oct 2003 05:46:28 -0700
> Subject: Re: Did the Church Fathers write in Classical Latin?
>
> So they, no offense other posters, Augustine and these other Fathers
> wrote in Classical Latin?
>
> If I were to pick up what they wrote, how can one tell if it Classical
> or Church Latin?
As Robert Stonehouse has pointed out, what you get depends on the background
of whoever was writing it, and also on the audience to which the work was
targeted. As an example, the Augustine of De Trinitate differs from him of
the Confessiones, although both are quite correct: different subject matter,
vastly different audiences. And then again, Augustine's Sermons vary even
more, since they were largely homiletic, falling into that category which
the Church folk are fond of calling Sacred Eloquence, a cornerstone of which
is adherence to ethopoieia.
The term Church Latin in some ways is a misnomer if it is used to denote a
style, a choice of vocabulary, etc. It additionally confusing because
outside the "Club", so to speak, Church Latin is often used as a synonym for
the Vulgate, the medieval hymnology, the texts of the Tridentine mass, none
of which really reflect the range and variety of texts dealing with
religious issues in the broadest sense. Styles are widely divergent, as is
choice of vocabulary and morphological appendages. It used to be fashionable
to consider ecclesiastical authors of African venue as "Afican" or
Africanized Latin because of small groups of forms which they exhibited as
opposed to authors of nonAfrican origin or venue. As in the case of
Apuleius, who was also the subject of such analysis, this viewpoint has
largely seen its heyday.
John Briggs wrote:
> What do you mean by "sound different"? To answer your original question,
> essentially Latin is Latin. Until you have acquired a fair degree of
> proficiency, you won't be able to tell the difference.
> --
Actually, what he wrote is quite valid:
> Since I know NOTHING about Latin except the two are
> supposed to sound different, how would I find out
Church pronunciation has pretty much become Italianate in character.
However, that Italianization interestingly enough has some analogues with
regional tendencies of some antiquity. Classical Latin, in its current
version, is largely a reconstruction based on the methods of historical and
comparative linguistics, and in fact does sound quite different from what is
used in the Roman Catholic Church. Good recordings of each are a painless
way of getting a handle on the differences. Richard Tarant and company have
some readings of Cicero, Catullus, and Propertius online. The monks of
Solesmes have recordings of CHant that are among the most authentic.
available. Sturtevant, Sonkowski, etc have written material on the subject.
As far as the degree of proficiency required to appreciate the difference,
I'm not so sure that the bar must be set that high. Native curiosity and
diligence will make up for a postponement of the Baptism of Wissenschaft.
Elements like the hebraicisms, Hellenisms, exotic vocabulary, and elements
like parataxis over subordination in the Gospels, will, I'm sure, stand out,
even for a fairly inexperienced reader. I think the real point is that no
matter what your goals may be, a good grounding in the full grammar and
vocabulary will prove most fruitful for the widest range of comprehension. I
have taught Greek to individuals who were headed for the seminary, and at
the beginning they would be curious as to why I didn't teach the New
Testament as a model. Well, I would often tell them that if they had an
interest in the Church Fathers, many of whom were Atticists, and who used
inflections and stylistic devices largely absent from the New Testament. An
immersion in the older language would grant access to a wider range of
authors and literature, and would provide a better foundation for
appreciating the nuances of style and semantics found across the whole
gamut. Of course, I also believe the same for Latin. As I would not give the
Vulgate or Gregory of Tours or Raymond of Aguilers as a first author, so I
owuldn't give Petronius or inscriptions and graffitti.
J. W. Love wrote:
> Bear in mind: Classical Latin word-order is usually less like English
> word-order than this (and biblical word-order often is), Classical Latin
> sentences are often longer & more complex than this, and it's generally a
> self-defeating strategy to translate word for word like this.
> word-order than this (and biblical word-order often is), Classical Latin
> sentences are often longer & more complex than this, and it's generally a
> self-defeating strategy to translate word for word like this.
This also true of much Ecclesiastical Latin. A few examples follow:
Ioannis XXII Episcopus Servus servorum Dei
Opinio, quae asserit, Christum et eius discipulos nihil habuisse, et in his,
quae habuerunt, nullum ius eis fuisse, erronea est et haeretica. Haec
extravagans est valde notabilis, et glossas habet profundas, quae sunt ex
sacrae scripturae fontibus haustae. Si diligenter extravagantem praecedentem
et sequentem inspexeris: locum hunc aptum fuisse assignatum, mea opionone
dixeris.[1]
1. Quum inter nonnullos viros [2] scholasticos saepe contingat in
dubium revocari, utrum pertinaciter affirmare, Redemptorem nostrum ac
[3] Dominum Iesum Christum eiusque Apostolos in speciali non habuisse
aliqua, nec in communi etiam, haereticum sit censendum, diversa [4] et
adversa etiam sentientibus circa illud: nos, huic concertationi finem
imponere cupientes, assertionem huiusmodi pertinacem, quum scripturae
sacrae, quae in plerisque locis ipsos nonnulla habuisse asserit,
contradicat expresse, ipsamque scripturam sacram, per quam utique fidei
orthodoxae probantur articuli quoad praemissa fermentum aperte supponat
continere mendacii, ac per consequens, quantum in ea est, eius in totum
fidem evacuans, fidem catholicam reddat, eius probationem adimens,
dubiam et incertam, deinceps erroneam fore censendam et haereticam, de
fratrum nostrorum consilio hoc perpetuo declaramus edicto.
2. Rursus in posterum pertinaciter affirmare, quod Redemptori nostro
praedicto eius Apostolis iis [5], quae ipsos habuisse scriptura sacra
testatur, nequaquam ius ipsis utendi competierit, nec illa vendendi seu
donandi ius habuerint, aut ex ipsis alia acquirendi, quae tamen ipsos
de praemissis fecisse scriptura sacra testatur, seu ipsos potuisse
facere supponit expresse, quum talis assertio ipsorum usum et gesta
evidenter includat, in praemissis non iusta, quod utique de usu, gestis
seu factis Redemptoris nostri Dei Filii sentire nefas est, sacrae
scripturae contrarium et doctrinae catholicae inimicum, assertionem
ipsam pertinacem de fratrum nostrorum [6] consilio deinceps erroneam
fore censendam merito ac [7] haereticam declaramus.
Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam nostrarum declarationum
infringere, vel ausu ei temerario contraire. Si quis autem etc..
Datum Avinion. II Idus Novembr. Ao. VII [8] [1323]
Ioannis XXII
A much simpler example is this excerpt from Lotario dei Segni's De Miseria
Condicionis Humane:
"Quare de vulva matris mee egressus sum ut viderem laborem et dolorem et
consumerentur in confusione dies mei?" Si talia locutus est ille de se quem
Deus sanctificavit in utero, qualia loquar ego de me, quem mater mea genuit
in peccato? Heu me, dixerim, mater mea, quid me genuisti, filium
amaritudinis et doloris? "Quare non in vulva mortuus sum? Egressus de utero,
non statim perii? Cur exceptus genibus, lactatus uberibus," natus "in
combustionem et cibum ignis"? Utinam interfectus fuissem in utero, "ut
fuisset michi mater mea sepulchrum et vulva eius conceptus eternus."
"Fuissem enim quasi qui non essem, de utero translatus ad tumulum." Quis det
ergo oculis meis fontem lacrimarum, ut fleam miserabilem humane condicionis
ingressum, culpabilem humane conversacionis progressum, dampnabilem humane
dissolucionis egressum? Consideraverim ergo cum lacrimis de quo factus est
homo, quid faciat homo, quid futurus sit homo. Sane formatus est homo de
terra, conceptus in culpa, natus ad penam. Agit prava que non licent, turpia
que non decent, vana que non expediunt. Fit cibus ignis, esca vermis, massa
putredinis. Exponam id planius; edissera plenius. Formatus est homo de
pulvere, de luto, de cinere: quodque vilius est, de spurcissimo spermate.
Conceptus in pruritu carnis, in fervore libidinis, in fetore luxurie:
quodque deterius est, in labe peccati. Natus ad laborem, timorem, dolorem:
quodque miserius est, ad mortem. Agit prava quibus offendit Deum, offendit
proximum, offendit seipsum; agit vana et turpia quibus polluit famam,
polluit personam, polluit conscienciam. Agit vana quibus negligit seria,
negligit utilia, negligit necessaria. Fiet cibus ignis qui semper ardet et
urit inextinguibilis; esca vermis qui semper rodit et commedit immortalis;
massa putredinis qui semper fetet et sordet horribilis.
Prosper of Aquitaine, who was Augustine's champion and informant against
Pelagianism in Provence, wrote this in a letter to Augustine:
[1] Ignotus quidem tibi facie, sed jam aliquatenus, si reminiscaris, animo
ac sermone compertus; nam per sanctum fratrem meum Leontium diaconum misi
epistolas et recepi; nunc quoque beatitudini tuae scribere audeo, non solum
salutationis, ut tunc, studio; sed etiam fidei qua Ecclesia vivit affectu.
Excubante enim pro universis membris corporis Christi vigilantissima
industria tua, et adversus haereticarum doctrinarum insidias veritatis
virtute pugnante, nullo modo mihi verendum putavi ne onerosus tibi aut
importunus essem in eo quod ad multorum salutem, ac perinde ad pietatem
tuam, pertinet: cum potius reum futurum esse me crederem, [67B] si ea quae
valde perniciosa esse intelligo ad specialem patronum fidei non referrem.
This is from Aquinas, De Principio Individuationis:
Quoniam duae sunt in homine potentiae cognoscitivae, scilicet sensus et
intellectus, manifestum est illas diversitatem supponere ex parte obiectorum
suorum. Sciendum est autem quod in cognitione humana fundamentum et origo
est sensus, unde propinquior est rei extraneae supra quam tota actio virium
sensitivarum fundatur, secundum philosophum in libro Perihermeneias. Unde
propter manifestam passionem sensuum a sensibilibus tanquam a propinquo
ortam, passiones intellectuum dixit esse similitudines rerum, de passionibus
vero sensuum nullam mentionem fecit ibi.
This is from Luther's Augsburg Confession:
1] Invictissime Imperator, Caesar Auguste, domine clementissime. Quum Vestra
Caesarea Maiestas indixerit conventum Imperii Augustae, ut deliberetur de
auxiliis contra Turcam, atroccissimum, haereditaium atque veterem Christiani
nominis ac religionis hostem, quomodo illiuis scilicet furori et conatbisu
durabili et perpetuo belli apparaturesisite possit,
2] deinde et de dissensionibus in causa nostrae sanctae religionis et
Christianae fidei, et ut in hac causa religionis partium opiniones ac
sententiae inter sese in caritate, lenitate et mansuetudine mutua audiantur
coram, intelligantur et ponderentur, ut illis,
3] quae utrimque in Scripturis secus tractata aut intellecta sunt, sepositis
et correctis, re illae ad unam simplicem veritatem et Christianam concordiam
componantur et reducantur;
4] ut de cetero a nobis una, sincera et vera religio colatur et servetur,
ut, quemadmodum sub uno Christo sumus et militamus, ita in una etiam
ecclesia Christiana in unitate et concordia vivere possimus; Quumque nos
infra scripti Elector et Principes cum aliis,
5] qui nobis coniuncti sunt, perinde ut alii Electores et Principes et
Status ad praedicta [*praefata] comitia evocati sumus [simus], ut Caesareo
mandato abedienter obsequeremur, mature venimus Augustam et, quod citra
iactantiam dictum voumus, inter primos affuimus.
The following is a more approachable Tertullian:
quodsi stadium contendas in scripturis nominari, sane obtinebis. sed quae in
stadio geruntur, indigna conspectu tuo non negabis, pugnos et calces et
colaphos et omnem petulantiam manus et quamcumque humani oris, id est
divinae imaginis, depugnationem. non probabis usquam vanos cursus et
iaculatus et saltus vaniores, nusquam tibi vires aut iniuriosae aut vanae
placebunt, sed nec cura facticii corporis, ut plasticam dei supergressa, et
propter Graeciae otium altiles homines oderis. et palaestrica diaboli
negotium est: primos homines diabolus elisit. ipse gestus colubrina vis est,
tenax ad occupandum, tortuosa ad obligandum, liquida ad elabendum. nullus
tibi coronarum usus est; quid de coronis voluptates aucuparis?
exspectabimus nunc ut et amphitheatri repudium de scripturis petamus? si
saevitiam, si impietatem, si feritatem permissam nobis contendere possumus,
eamus in amphitheatrum. si tales sumus quales dicimur, delectemur sanguine
humano. "bonum est, cum puniuntur nocentes." quis hoc nisi nocens negabit?
et tamen innocentes de supplicio alterius laetari non oportet, cum magis
competat innocenti dolere, quod homo, par eius, tam nocens factus est, ut
tam crudeliter impendatur. quis autem mihi sponsor est, nocentes semper vel
ad bestias vel ad quodcumque supplicium decerni, ut non innocentiae quoque
inferatur aut ultione iudicantis aut infirmitate defensionis aut instantia
quaestionis? quam melius ergo est nescire cum mali puniuntur, ne sciam et
cum boni pereunt, si tamen bonum sapiunt. certe quidem gladiatores
innocentes in ludum veneunt, ut publicae voluptatis hostiae fiant. etiam qui
damnantur in ludum, quale est ut de leviore delicto in homicidas emendatione
proficiant?
sed haec ethnicis respondi. ceterum absit ut de istius spectaculi
aversione diutius discat Christianus. quamquam nemo haec omnia plenius
exprimere potest nisi qui adhuc spectat. malo non implere quam meminisse.
(De Spectaculis XVIII-XVIX)
And then we have this somewhat less than uplifting passage from Arnobius of
Sicca:
Quodsi essent ut fama est dominicae prolis et potestatis animae generatio
principalis, nihil eis ad perfectionem defuisset virtute perfectissima
procreatis, unum omnes intellectum habuissent unumque consensum, aulam
semper incolerent regiam nec praetermissis beatitudinis sedibus, in quibus
augustissimas noverant retinebantque doctrinas, imprudenter adpeterent
terrena haec loca, tenebrosis ut corporibus involutae inter pituitas et
sanguinem degerent, inter stercoris hos utres et saccati obscenissimas
serias. ''Sed habitari oportuit et has partis, et idcirco huc animas tamquam
in colonias aliquas deus omnipotens misit''. - Et quid homines prosunt mundo
aut ob rei cuius sunt necessarii causam, ut non frustra debuisse credantur
parte in hac agere et terreni esse corporis inquilini? Ad consummandam molis
huius integritatem partem aliquam conferunt, et nisi fuerint additi,
inperfecta et clauda est universitatis haec summa? Quid ergo, si homines non
sint, ab officiis suis cessabit mundus, vicissitudines suas non peragent
sidera, aestates atque hiemes non erunt, ventorum flamina conticescent nec
ex coactis et pendentibus nubilis ad terram decident imbres ariditatibus
temperamenta laturi? Atquin necesse est cuncta suos ire per cursus nec ab
ordinis nati continuatione discedere, etiamsi nomen in mundo nullum hominis
audiatur orbisque iste terrarum solitudinis vacuae silentio | f. 46 |
conticiscat. Quemadmodum ergo iactatur, habitatorem debuisse regionibus his
addi, cum ab homine liqueat nihil ad mundi perfectionem redire omniaque eius
studia commoditatem semper spectare privatam nec a finibus propriae
utilitatis abscedere?
Quid enim prodest mundo, ut ab rebus incipiam seriis, maximos reges hic
esse? quid tyrannos, quid dominos, quid innumeras alias atque amplissimas
potestates? quid rei militaris experientissimos duces, capiendarum urbium
peritos, in equestribus proeliis aut in pedestri pugna immobiles atque
invictissimos milites? quid oratores grammaticos poetas? quid scriptores
dialecticos musicos? quid pantomimos, quid mimulos histriones cantores tuba
tibiis calamo que flatantes? quid cursores, quid pugiles, quadrigarios
desultores grallatores funiambulos praestigiatores? quid picarios
salinatores bolonas unguentarios aurifices aucupes vannorum sirpiarumque
vitores? quid fullones lanarios phrygiones cocos panchristarios muliones
lenones lanios meretrices? quid institorum alia genera, quid professorum et
artium, quibus enumerandis omnis aetas angusta est, rationibus conferunt et
constitutionibus mundi, ut sine hominibus condi non potuisse credatur nec
optenturus integritatem sui, nisi ei contentio animalis miseri et supervacui
iungeretur? (Adversus Nationes II.37-38)
Jerome wrote the following to a young woman disciple. In its simplicity (and
correctness) it is a masterpiece of ethopoietic correctness:
Nolo tibi venire superbiam de proposito, sed timorem. Onusta incedis auro,
latro vitandus est. Stadium est haec vita mortalibus: hic contendimus, ut
alibi coronemur. Nemo inter serpentes et scorpiones securus ingreditur.
ŒInebriatus est,¹ inquit dominus, Œgladius meus in caelo,¹ et tu pacem
arbitraris in terra, quae tribulos generat et spinas, quam serpens comedit?
ŒNon est nobis conluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem, sed adversus
principatus et potestates huius mundi et harum tenebrarum, adversus
spiritalia nequitiae in caelestibus.¹ Magnis inimicorum circumdamur
agminibus, hostium plena sunt omnia. Caro fragilis et cinis futura post
modicum pugnat sola cum pluribus. (Epistula XXII.3 Ad Eustochium )
The following is a very approachable passage from Augustine's Confessions,
Book X. The discourse on time in the same book is considerably more
involved.
ubi non mecum ambulasti, veritas, docens quid caveam et quid appetam, cum ad
te referrem inferiora visa mea quae potui, teque consulerem? lustravi mundum
foris sensu quo potui, et attendi vitam corporis mei de me sensusque ipsos
meos. inde ingressus sum in recessus memoriae meae, multiplices amplitudines
plenas miris modis copiarum innumerabilium, et consideravi et expavi, et
nihil eorum discernere potui sine te et nihil eorum esse te inveni. nec ego
ipse inventor, qui peragravi omnia et distinguere et pro suis quaeque
dignitatibus aestimare conatus sum, excipiens alia nuntiantibus sensibus et
interrogans, alia mecum commixta sentiens ipsosque nuntios dinoscens atque
dinumerans iamque in memoriae latis opibus alia pertractans, alia recondens,
alia eruens. nec ego ipse cum haec agerem, id est vis mea qua id agebam, nec
ipsa eras tu, quia lux es tu permanens quam de omnibus consulebam, an
essent, quid essent, quanti pendenda essent, et audiebam docentem ac
iubentem. et saepe istuc facio. hoc me delectat, et ab actionibus
necessitatis, quantum relaxari possum, ad istam voluptatem refugio. neque in
his omnibus quae percurro consulens te invenio tutum locum animae meae nisi
in te, quo conligantur sparsa mea nec a te quicquam recedat ex me. et
aliquando intromittis me in affectum multum inusitatum introrsus, ad nescio
quam dulcedinem, quae si perficiatur in me, nescio quid erit quod vita ista
non erit. sed recido in haec aerumnosis ponderibus et resorbeor solitis et
teneor et multum fleo, sed multum teneor. tantum consuetudinis sarcina digna
est! his esse valeo nec volo, illic volo nec valeo, miser utrubique.
ideoque consideravi languores peccatorum meorum in cupiditate triplici,
et dexteram tuam invocavi ad salutem meam. vidi enim splendorem tuum corde
saucio et repercussus dixi, `quis illuc potest?' proiectus sum a facie
oculorum tuorum. tu es veritas super omnia praesidens, at ego per avaritiam
meam non amittere te volui, sed volui tecum possidere mendacium, sicut nemo
vult ita falsum dicere, ut nesciat ipse quid verum sit. itaque amisi te,
quia non dignaris cum mendacio possideri. (Confessiones X.40-41)
These glyconics of Boethius are quite elegant, more than justifying the
often voiced claim that he was the last classical author:
numquam purpureum nemus
lecturus uiolas petas
cum saeuis Aquilonibus
stridens campus inhorruit;
nec quaeras auida manu
uernos stringere palmites
uuis si libeat frui ;
autumno potius sua
Bacchus munera contulit . (De Cons. Phil., I, metron vi)
And here is Caedmon's Cowshed, from Bede:
Quod dum tempore quodam faceret, et relict a domo convivii egressus
esset ad stabula iumentorum quorum ei custodia nocte illa erat delegata,
ibique hora competenti membra dedisset sopori, adstitit ei quidam per
somnium, cumque salutans, se suo appellans nomine: "Caedmon," inquit,
"canta mihi aliquid." At ille respondens, "Nescio," inquit, "cantare; nam et
ideo de convivio egressus huc secessi, quia cantare non poteram." Rursum
ille qui cum eo loquebatur, "Attamen," ait, "mihi cantare habes." "Quid,"
inquit, "debeo cantare?" At ille, "Canta," inquit, "principium creaturarum."
Quo accepto responso, statim ipse coepit cantare in laudem Dei Conditoris
versus, quos nunquam audierat, quorum iste est sensus: "Nunc laudare debemus
auctorem regni caelestis, potentiam Creatoris, et consilium illius, facta
Patris gloriae; quomodo ille, cum sit aeternus Deus, omnium miraculorum
auctor exstitit; qui primo filiis hominum caelum pro culmine tecti, dehinc
terram custos humani generis omnipotens creavit." Hic est sensus, non autem
ordo ipse verborum quae dormiens ille canebat: neque enim possunt carmina,
quamvis optime composita, ex alia in aliam linguam ad verbum sine detrimento
sui decoris ac dignitatis transferri. Exsurgens autem a somno, cuncta quae
dormiens cantaverat memoriter retinuit, et eis mox plura in eundem modum
verba Deo digni carminis adiunxit. (Historia Ecclesiastia Gentis Anglorum
IV.24.8-15)
The following is from Peter Abelard's Historia Calamitatum Mearum:
Erat quippe in ipsa civitate Parisius adolescentula quedam nomine Heloysa,
neptis canonici cuiusdam qui Fulbertus vo /f.4vb/ cabatur, qui eam quanto
amplius diligebat tanto diligentius in omnem qua poterat scientiam
litterarum promoveri studuerat. Que cum per faciem non esset infima, per
habundantiam litterarum erat suprema. Nam quo bonum hoc litteratorie
scilicet scientie in mulieribus est rarius, eo amplius puellam commendabat
et in toto regno nominatissimam fecerat. Hanc igitur, omnibus circunspectis
que amantes allicere solent, commodiorem censui in amorem mihi copulare, et
me id facillime credidi posse. Tanti quippe tunc nominis eram et iuventutis
et forme gratia preminebam, ut quamcunque feminarum nostro dignarer amore
nullam vererer repulsam.
And the following is from Heloise's remarkable letter to Abelard:
Nosti, karissime, noverunt omnes quanta in te amiserim et quam miserabili
casu summa et ubique nota proditio me ipsam quoque mihi tecum abstulerit, ut
incomparabiliter maior sit dolor ex amissionis modo quam ex dampno. Quo vero
maior est dolendi causa, maiora sunt consolationis adhibenda remedia; non
utique ab alio, sed a te ipso, ut, qui solus es in causa dolendi, solus sis
in gratia consolandi. Solus quippe es qui me contristare, qui me letificare
seu consolari valeas, et solus es qui plurimum id mihi debeas | et nunc
maxime cum universa que iusseris in tantum impleverim ut cum te in aliquo
offendere non possem, me ipsam pro iussu tuo perdere sustinerem. Et quod
maius est dictuque mirabile, in tantam versus est amor insaniam ut quod
solum appetebat, hoc ipse sibi sine spe recuperationis auferret, cum ad tuam
statim iussionem tam habitum ipsa quam animum immutarem, ut te tam corporis
mei quam animi unicum possessorem ostenderem. Nichil umquam (Deus scit) in
te nisi te requisivi: te pure, non tua concupiscens. Non matrimonii federa,
non dotes aliquas expectavi, non denique meas voluptates aut voluntates, sed
tuas, sicut ipse nosti, adimplere studui. Et si uxoris nomen sanctius ac
validius videretur, dulcius mihi semper extitit amice vocabulum aut, si non
indigneris, concubine vel scorti; ut, quo me videlicet pro te amplius
humiliarem, ampliorem apud te consequerer gratiam, et sic etiam excellentie
tue gloriam minus lederem. Quod et tu ipse tui gratia oblitus penitus non
fuisti in ea quam supra memini ad amicum epistola pro consolatione directa,
ubi et rationes nonnullas quibus te a coniugio nostro et infaustis thalamis
revocare conabar exponere non es dedig | natus, sed plerisque tacitis quibus
amorem coniugio, libertatem vinculo preferebam. Deum testem invoco, si me
Augustus universo presidens mundo matrimonii honore dignaretur, totumque
mihi orbem confirmaret in perpetuo possidendum, karius mihi et dignius
videretur tua dici meretrix quam illius imperatrix.
The following i8s from the exordium of Pico.s famous oration:
PICI MIRANDULENSIS ORATIO DE HOMINIS DIGNITATE -- Legi, Patres
colendissimi, in Arabum monumentis, interrogatum Abdalam sarracenum, quid in
hac quasi mundana scena admirandum maxime spectaretur, nihil spectari homine
admirabilius respondisse. Cui sententiae illud Mercurii adstipulatur:
ÇMagnum, o Asclepi, miraculum est homo. Horum dictorum rationem cogitanti
mihi non satis illa faciebant, quae multa de humanae naturae praestantia
afferuntur a multis: esse hominem creaturarum internuntium, superis
familiarem, regem inferiorum; sensuum perspicacia, rationis indagine,
intelligentiae lumine, naturae interpretem; stabilis evi et fluxi temporis
interstitium, et (quod Persae dicunt) mundi copulam, immo hymeneum, ab
angelis, teste Davide, paulo deminutum. Magna haec quidem, sed non
principalia, idest quae summae admirationis privilegium sibi iure vendicent.
Cur enim non ipsos angelos et beatissimos caeli choros magis admiremur?
Tandem intellexisse mihi sum visus, cur felicissimum proindeque dignum omni
admiratione animal sit homo, et quae sit demum illa conditio quam in
universi serie sortitus sit, non brutis modo, sed astris, sed ultramundanis
mentibus invidiosam. Res supra fidem et mira. Quidni? Nam et propterea
magnum miraculum et admirandum profecto animal iure homo et dicitur et
existimatur. 9. Sed quae nam ea sit audite, Patres, et benignis auribus pro
vestra humanitate hanc mihi operam condonate.
I offer the following amatory nuga, which, while not ecclesiastical in theme
(or language) is deserving of mention if only for the reason that it has
been largely preserved through the editorial efforts of several clergymen.
It is also one of the great literary forgeries, (a double forgery, if you
will, perpetrated by one Nicholas Chorier on the names of the Spanish
poetess, Aloysia Sigaea ["the Minerva of her Age"] and the Dutch humanist,
Iohannes Meursius):
Rangonius. Vide ut arrigo. Sed volo nova via ad rem ire.
Tullia. Nova via? Non, per pruriginem meam! Non ibis nova via.
Rangonius. Peccavi lingua. Volui dicere, nova figura.
Tullia. Quae tandem erit? Occurrit ultro: vocant Hectoreum equum. Extende
te supinum, Rangoni hastaque illa fulmnatrix hostem quaerat intenta, quem
confodiat. Apte!
Octavia. Quid facere vis, me, Tullia?
Tullia: Surge, et aversa intra femura tua Rangonium subiice. Eius machaera
iacentis vaginae respondeat imminentis. Apte collocasti te. Bene est.
Rangonius. O dorsum Dionaeum! O lumbos eburneos! O incendarios nates!
Tullia. Ab his abstine maledictis.. Cunno maledicit, qui natibus cum laude
benedicit.At enim sapis, Octavia. Voravit tibi rudem mentulam, Rangoni,
helluo cunnus.
Octavia. Adest, Rangoni. En, en adest, Rangoni, mihi opi.
Rangonius. Adsum, Octavia, adsum. Ades tu? Ades tu?
Tullia. Tum cito deficisti ambo?
(Aloysiae Sigaeae Toletanae Satyra Sotadica de arcanis amoris et Veneris.
Aloysia hispanice scripsit latinitate donavit Ioannes Meursius, Dial. VII)
The following passage is from John XXIII, Mater et Magistra. Here he treats
of the "have's and the have not's", redefining the Church's notions of
social justice, distribution of wealth, the mystical body of Christ as a
cornerstone of social teaching, etc.:
Verum nostris hisce diebus quaestio una fortasse omnium maxima haec
affertur, quae nimirum necessitudines civitatibus in re oeconomica
progressis cum civitatibus, quarum oeconomicae progressiones sint in cursu,
intercedere debeant; quarum alterae vitae commodis fruantur; alterae vero
praedura egestate laborent. Siquidem, cum mutua necessitudine homines, qui
ubique sunt, ita hodie consocientur, ut in quandam et quasi unam domum
insitos sese sentiant, idcirco quibus nationibus saturitas copiaque sit
omnium bonorum, ab iis status non est neglegendus aliarum, quarum cives in
tantis versentur domesticis difficultatibus, ut egestate fameque paene
conficiantur, neve iuribus praecipuis hominum propriis, ut oportet, frui
possint; eo vel magis quod, cum civitates videantur cotidie magis aliae ex
aliis quodammodo pendere, fieri non potest ut diu utilem pacem eaedem
servent, si earum oeconomicae et sociales condiciones nimiopere ab aliarum
discrepent.
Nos igitur, qui homines universos diligimus tamquam filios, Nostrarum esse
partium arbitramur, hoc loco illud apertissime in medio ponere, quod alias
monuimus: «In nos ad unum omnes cadere, quod populi tenuitate victus omnino
vexentur». (35) «[Quapropter] opus esse, ut in singulis, ut generatim in
omnibus, praesertim autem in opulentioribus huius conscientia officii
incitetur». (36)
Ut facili coniectura prospicitur, utque Ecclesia semper graviterque monuit,
officium egenis et miseris opitulandi catholicos homines cum maxime
commovere iustum est, utpote qui membra sint mystici corporis Christi. «In
hoc cognovimus caritatem Dei inquit Ioannes Apostolus quoniam ille
animam suam pro nobis posuit: et nos debemus pro fratribus animas ponere.
Qui habuerit substantiam huius mundi, et viderit fratrem suum necessitatem
habere, et clauserit viscera sua ab eo, quomodo caritas Dei manet in eo?»
(1Io 3,16-17).
Quocirca libenti animo videmus civitates rationibus instructiores, ad res
gignendas idoneis, suppetias civitatibus a bonis imparatis ferre, ut ipsis
minus arduum sit in melius suas mutare fortunas. [441]
Cum pateat profecto omnibus, alias nationes edulibus bonis ac maxime
frugibus redundare, in aliis vero populares multitudines inopia et fame
laborare, iustitia et humanitas postulant, ut opulentiores illae civitates
subsidio egentibus civitatibus adsint. Quare bona ad hominum vitam
necessaria vel omnino atterere vel profundere, tam adversus iustitiae quam
adversus humanitatis officia facit.
Non sumus plane nescii, sicubi bona abundantiora quam pro civitatis
necessitatibus praesertim ex agris gignantur, inibi posse quibusdam civium
ordinibus enasci detrimenta. Attamen ex hoc nequaquam sequitur, ut quae
nationes bonis affluant, eae ad ferendam egenis ieiunisque opem, ubi
peculiaris quaedam emergat necessitas, non astringantur; quin etiam illud
est diligentissime curandum, ut ortae ex bonorum ubertate incommoditates,
eaedem et imminuantur et aequa ratione a singulis civibus tolerentur
viritim.
Attamen his effectis non continuo e pluribus civitatibus tollentur stabiles
egestatis famisque causae, quae in rudi quadam rerum oeconomicarum ratione
plerumque ponendae sunt. Quibus ut remedium afferatur, omnes, qui dentur,
aditus explorandi sunt, ut partim cives in artibus exercendis, in suisque
obeundis muneribus egregie erudiantur, ut partim in possessionem eant
pecuniarum, quibus iidem res oeconomicas provehant, viis et rationibus
nostrae huic aetati accommodatis.
Nos nulla ex parte praeterit, quam penitus multorum in animis insederit,
novissimis hisce annis, ea conscientia officii, suppetias esse ferendas
civitatibus inopibus et haud satis idonea etiamnum rei oeconomicae
supellectile instructis, ut apud eas res oeconomica itemque socialis
expeditius progrediatur.
Ad quos optatos exitus ut pervehatur, videmus Consilia vel plurium nationum
vel singulae cuiusque civitatis, videmus privatorum incepta et societates
civitatibus eiusmodi operam praebere cotidie liberalius, artibus traditis ad
res gignendas magis idoneis. Quare auxilia quam plurimis adulescentibus
feruntur, ut in maximis Athenaeis civitatum magis progressarum studiis
operam dantes, ad artes et ad disciplinas instituantur, cum nostrae huius
aetatis rationibus congruentes. Addendum eodem illud est, quod sive
argentariae ad omnes spectantes nationes, sive singulae nationes, sive
privati cives iisdem civitatibus pecunias saepe credunt mutuas, quibus,
[442] apud civitates opibus inferiores, plurium institutorum initium fiat,
ad bona parienda aptorum: quod munificum consilium, hac oblata
opportunitate, merita laude libentissimi ornamus. Optandum vero est, ut in
posterum civitates opulentiores magis magisque connitantur, ut civitatibus
sui profectus viam ingredientibus adiutricem operam navent, ad doctrinas, ad
artes, ad res oeconomicas promovendas.
My final excerpt is from John Paul II, one of the last great champions of
Latinity at the Vatican. It is from Fides et Ratio, and considers the
questions of pluralism and the universality of the quests for truth and
knowledge:
Candidus intuitus veteres in annales luculenter aliunde demonstrat, variis
in orbis regionibus multiplici humano distinctis cultu, exsistere eodem
tempore principales illas interrogationes quibus vita designatur hominum:
Quis egomet sum? Unde venio? Quoque vado? Cur mala adsunt? Quid nos manet
hanc post vitam? Haec quaesita reperiuntur in sacris Israelis scriptionibus,
at insunt etiam scriptis Veda necnon Avesta; detegimus ea in operibus
Confutii atque Lao-Tze, quemadmodum in praedicatione virorum Tirthankara
ipsiusque Buddhae; exsistunt similiter ex Homeri carminibus ac tragoediis
Euripidis et Sophoclis, perinde ac philosophicis in Platonis et Aristotelis
tractatibus. Hae nempe interrogationes sunt quae ex illa communi profluunt
inquisitione de sensu ipso quo numquam non hominis animus inquietatur: ex
responsione vero, quae talibus redditur rogationibus, directio pendet quae
vitae humanae est imprimenda.
-----------------------------------------------------
The point of these excerpts has been to exhibit that what is commonly called
Church Latin: is by no means "bad", always easy and simple", lacking in
elegance, and homogeneous in theme, range, style, and vocabulary.
To return, then, to the fray:
> Summarising, there were two things that differentiated Christian
> Latin. First, the Christians were of low social class ad spoke vulgar
> Latin, not the artificial literary language that is almost all we have
> left. Secondly,they needed a language to translate the scriptures, and
> so many strange usages grew up, including a lot of Greek words and
> constructions (and not a few gross mistranslations).
>
> Christian writers like Augustine (he was an advocate before he became
> a Christian) varied a great deal in their style depending on whom they
> were addressing. So there was a broad spectrum of Chrisian Latin, some
> closer to classical (though still modified to express Christian
> concepts) and some closer to he vulgar language.
Palmer's brief treatment is excellent. However, I would add that Christian
writers coined new words because they were often introducing new concepts
(e.g., incarnatio), and to situate this practise in a proper context, these
neologisms (many now commonplaces of religious discourse), probably would
have met with approval by both Quintilian and Cicero.
> Start from classical, then, as Augustine himself did. It will not be
> hard to add the Christian features later.
Excellent advice. I would also add that, if ecclesiastical matters are on's
primary interest, learning Greek would be a worthwhile enterprise. Augustine
marks a milestone in the history of Christian thought: he was the first
major western thinker who didn't have a grasp of Greek, and consequently had
no access to the Greek Fathers in the original language. Beyond that, I
suspect that his lack of Greek probably hardened his positions on original
sin and Pelagianism, driving a great doctrinal wedge of reasoning (and
perhaps human sympathy) between the western and eastern churches.
Roger Pearse wrote:
> Tertullian's work "De pallio" has been called the hardest thing in the
> Latin language. He can be very concise; and since his text has only
> just survived in some cases, damage can be a serious matter.
My first encounter with a sentence of Terullian's was, if memory serves me,
in a Latin epigraph to one of Poe's necrophiliac short stories. I was, I
think, about fifteen at the time.
You are not mistaken. Stylistically, textually, Tertullian is pretty rough
going. However, he can be quite entertaining if one enjoy's good polemic.
And especially in something like De Spectaculis, he represents an older and
more pristine position on nonviolence, one which, I suspect, has proven an
embarrassment to the later disciples of the Prince of Peace who have
stretched their imaginations around the phallus of just war doctrine.
And now I come to the end of this - whatever it may be. I guess it must be
said, in conclusion, that I, although not one of the faithful, am a great
admirer and partisan of patristic Latin and Greek, both for not only the
peculiarities and beauties of the Latin and Greek, but for the often
enlightened sentiments and shrewd psychological observations contained
therein, which, I suspect, has me veering somewhat offtopic.
So, it's time to cork the word flow.
Bob
John Briggs
>
> Church pronunciation has pretty much become Italianate in character.
> However, that Italianization interestingly enough has some analogues with
> regional tendencies of some antiquity. Classical Latin, in its current
> version, is largely a reconstruction based on the methods of historical
> and comparative linguistics, and in fact does sound quite different from
> what is used in the Roman Catholic Church. Good recordings of each are a
> painless way of getting a handle on the differences. Richard Tarant and
> company have some readings of Cicero, Catullus, and Propertius online.
> authentic available. Sturtevant, Sonkowski, etc have written material on
> the subject.
>
I can't let you get away with that! The Solesmes chant is not authentic in
any sense, except that it truly reflects chant of c.1900. The Italianate
pronunciation only became universal around that date. The Solesmes chant
was a worthy attempt to revive what was thought to be the 'original'
character of chant, but does not pass muster these days. Early Music
ensembles these days can recreate the correct chant for a particular period,
and with the appropriate pronunciation.
--
John Briggs
bob
> From: "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com>
> Organization: ntlworld News Service
> Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:30:14 -0000
> Subject: Re: Did the Church Fathers write in Classical Latin?
>
> The Solesmes chant
> was a worthy attempt to revive what was thought to be the 'original'
> character of chant, but does not pass muster these days. Early Music
> ensembles these days can recreate the correct chant for a particular period,
> and with the appropriate pronunciation.
I'll stand by what I wrote. The abbots of Solesmes have not only supervised
the preservation of the chant tradition, but also have assembled a valuable
collection of their own writings on the musicology of chant, covering such
topics as ictus, interpretation of rhythm, etc. Besides, the chant, whatever
else you may have to say about it, certainly will prove adequate for what JM
had in mind. Beyond that I have the utmost reverence for their scholarship
and musical accomplishments, for the example they have set for both scholars
and students of chant. I'm sorry we aren't in concord with regard to this,
but I must say that there is nothing you will say or write to sway me from
either my opinion of or appreciation of this monastery's work and its
standing.
I remain unruffled and unswayed, and, for all intents and purposes, largely
unenthusiastic about debating the matter, as doctrinaire as that may sound.
If it will make you feel better, I'll grant that musicology and theories
about chant and medieval music progress through time subject to revision,
rerevision, retrenchment, and whatever else in the way of "re" may be out
there. Solesmes may not be eternal truth (what is?), but its legacy will
outlive that of most of its revisionist critics.
By the way, if you have the time, you might search out their rendition of
Iustorum animae in manu dei sunt. Halloween and All Saints are coming up.
It's a seasonally appropriate offertory - one also suitable for this
discussion.
Finally, if you have nothing else to say about the rest of my post, and if
your noted objection to my estimate of Solesmes is all you have to say about
it, I shall consider the matter closed.
Bob
J. W. Love
>The Solesmes chant is not authentic in any sense,
>except that it truly reflects chant of c.1900. The
>Italianate pronunciation only became universal around
>that date. The Solesmes chant was a worthy attempt to
>revive what was thought to be the 'original' character of
>chant, but does not pass muster these days.
Not sure _revive_ is the precisely right word here. Maybe _reform_ gets closer
to the heart of the enterprise. The preface to the Vatican edition of the
_Liber Usualis_ of 1934 says (emphasis added):
The Sovereign Pontiff, Pius X.---may his enterprise be crowned with good
fortune and success!---emulating herein the zealous endeavours of his
predecessors, determined and took measures to prevent any further decadence in
the Gregorian Chant. Wherefore, in his Motu Proprio, issued on November 22nd,
1903, he accurately and clearly laid down the principles (surely the first step
of *reform*) whereon the ecclesiastical Chant is based and whereby it is
controlled; he gathered together at the same time the principal regulations of
of [sic] the Church against the various abuses which had crept into the Chant
in the | course of time. And then appeared the Decree of the Congregation of
Sacred Rites, issued on January 8th, 1904, wherein clearer directions were give
[sic] for the *restoration* of the Gregorian Chant. (pp. ix-x)
And again:
The correct pronunciation of Latin words and consonants is a rock of offence
to many people. We are not here concerned with the delicate question of
pronunciation in the Classical period, but only with the pronunciation of the
*living* liturgical Latin of the Church. Our aim, in compliance with the wishes
of his holiness Pius X, is to pronounce and speak Latin in the Roman Style so
eminently suitably to Plainsong. (p. xxxvi)
So there you have it: the monks of Solesmes weren't trying to go back to
earlier pronunciations: not that of seventh- or eighth-century Rome for the Old
Roman chants in the repertory, not that of ninth-century France for much of the
material, and not that of twelfth- and thirteenth-century Paris for some of the
later additions. They complied with the pope's wishes and enforced the
proposition that the pronunciation current in Rome in the early twentieth
century was the correct one. Maybe that's why Mel Gibson chose it, rather than
a more historically accurate one, for his movie.
John Briggs
Or recreate, whatever. I was trying to strike a balance between what they
thought they were doing, and what we might think they were doing. Of
course, it was probably the success of their enterprise which itself enabled
the Italianate pronunciation to be enforced - prior to that date different
countries had pronounced Ecclesiastical Latin as if the words were words in
their own language. They had to re-do their work, of course - the current
"Liber Usualis" reflects Pius's liturgy of 1911.
--
John Briggs
bob
> From: lov...@aol.comix (J. W. Love)
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
> Date: 28 Oct 2003 00:52:26 GMT
> Subject: Re: Did the Church Fathers write in Classical Latin?
>
> The correct pronunciation of Latin words and consonants is a rock of offence
> to many people. We are not here concerned with the delicate question of
> pronunciation in the Classical period, but only with the pronunciation of the
> *living* liturgical Latin of the Church. Our aim, in compliance with the
> wishes
> of his holiness Pius X, is to pronounce and speak Latin in the Roman Style so
> eminently suitably to Plainsong. (p. xxxvi)
>
> So there you have it: the monks of Solesmes weren't trying to go back to
> earlier pronunciations: not that of seventh- or eighth-century Rome for the
> Old
> Roman chants in the repertory, not that of ninth-century France for much of
> the
> material, and not that of twelfth- and thirteenth-century Paris for some of
> the
> later additions. They complied with the pope's wishes and enforced the
> proposition that the pronunciation current in Rome in the early twentieth
> century was the correct one. Maybe that's why Mel Gibson chose it, rather than
> a more historically accurate one, for his movie.
The normalization of Latin pronunciation is a problem of some age. By the
time of Erasmus Latin was pronounced pretty much in the manner of the
vernacular of the area in which it was being used. Erasmus applied himself
to the reform of not only Latin, but also Greek pronunciation. The process
is still going on. I think the key phrasing in what you reported is:
We are not here concerned with the delicate question of
> pronunciation in the Classical period, but only with the pronunciation of the
> *living* liturgical Latin of the Church. Our aim, in compliance with the
> wishes
> of his holiness Pius X, is to pronounce and speak Latin in the Roman Style so
> eminently suitably to Plainsong.
The pronunciation used by the Catholic Church, whatever else one may say
about it, certainly does meet the rubric of a living tradition, if for no
other reason than the political fact of 450 years of Italian domination over
the Curia, the Vatican, and consequently the minutiae of ecclesiastical
affairs. However, the importance of Solesmes in the question of chant lies
not really in the minutiae of Italianate vs. regional pronunciation, but
rather in the systematic way in which they copied, photographed manuscripts,
many of the originals permanently lost in the bombings and burnings of WW
II,, and in the way they posed the question of the relationship between the
musical rhythm and the natural rhythm of the Latin words, whether the rhythm
of chant was "metrical" or speech/phrase based. Works out of Solesmes, such
as Dom Cardine's Semiologie Gregorienne are still required reading. In fact,
Cardine is so pivotal as to be the point of departure for agreement,
revision, or innovation in the subjectSolesmes was founded in 1833 by Dom
Prosper Gueranger who devoted his considerable efforts to the problems of
Gregorian Chant. Gueranger had his monks assemble and copy'photograph as
many collections of various melodies and chants as they could assemble from
various European monasteries. These collections became the basis for
subsequent theorizing on various chant matters. I only mention this to
indicate that the effort considerably predated 1934, 04 for that matter,
even 1900. The restoration continued under Dom Joseph Pothier, who published
a series of chant books for the Solesmes monks. He also delved into the
rhythm of chant, and seems to have been the first to propose that the rhythm
of chant was nonmetrical, based instead on the speech rhythm and accents of
the Latin words. Opposition to this notion, some of it similar to some of
the opposition voiced today, was not slow in coming forth. Pustet, publisher
for the Sacred Congregation of Rites, was in the vanguard, championing the
Medicean melodies over those of Solesmes. Additional resistance came from
the Caecilians who propounded a metrical theory. However, with the
publication of Dom Andre Mocquereau's Palaeographie Musicale the ball
returned firmly to Solesmes' court. Between 1905 and 1908 the Vatican jumped
onto the bandwagon, published a new edition of chant based on the research
at Solesmes. Subsequent editions utilizedsigns and notation devised by
Moquereau as rhythmic aids. And in still subsequent editions ancient musical
notation (preserved by Solesmes) was transcribed above and below the chants,
correlating the ancient and modern notational schemes. I don't see any point
in getting into the minutiae of the Solesmes positions on chant or the
various changes, revisions and rebuttals that have been propsed as
alternatives. However, I would recommend their web site
http://www.solesmes.com/anglais/ang_solesmes.html. After all, this thread
has been concerned with the ins and outs of classical vs. church latin, not
with competing theories of musicology. However, I would like to, prior to
closing, mention Father Columba Kelly, who has applied the spirit of
Solesmes theories of chant rhythm to producing "Gregorian Chants" in
English. His chants, interestingly enough, are more grounded in features of
English rhythm than of Latin.
Bob
bob
> From: bob <por...@ix.netcom.com>
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:14:56 GMT
> Subject: Re: Did the Church Fathers write in Classical Latin?
>
> Sturtevant, Sonkowski, etc have written material on the subject.
Sonkowsky in fact has recorded Vergil in Latin. Sturtevant has written on
pronunciation, as has Sidney Allen.
Bob